@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.—This is an intra-Court appeal preferred by the plaintiff in Title Suit No.46 of 1996 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Aska and opposite party no.1 in M.J.C. No.4 of 1997 before AFR this Court, challenging the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application filed by defendants no.1 to 4 in the said title suit and petitioners in the aforementioned M.J.C. No.4 of 1997 under Section 24 of C.P.C. in transferring Title Suit No.46 of 1996 from the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska to the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Rourkela for trial along with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996.
2. The brief facts of the case are that late Harihar Pradhan son of late Pandaba Pradhan was a permanent resident of village Ghodapalan, P.S.-Purusotampur, District-Ganjam. He came to Rourkela and did the contract works under the Rourkela Steel Plant and acquired extensive movable and immovable properties out of his own income. He married Jema Pradhan and out of their wedlock only daughter Indira Pradhan was born. Indira was given in marriage to one Sri Surendra Pradhan, and Jagannath Pradhan is their natural born son. Harihar Pradhan had no male issue and after taking consent of his first wife Jema Pradhan, he married Smt. Janaki daughter of Kulpat in the year 1964. He along with his wife Janaki was residing in a house at Power House Road, Rourkela which was purchased in her name. Janaki gave birth two daughters, namely, Renu Pradhan and Sarita Pradhan and one son, namely, Bhanu Pradhan. Therefore, Harihar Pradhan had only one son.
Harihar Pradhan instituted Title Suit No.37 of 1994 in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rourkela against one Digambar Moharana and his wife for a declaration that the sale deed dated 30.04.1974 does not convey any title in favour of first defendant and for eviction and for recovery of possession in respect of a house. After his death on 19.07.1995, his first wife-Jema Pradhan, daughter-Indira Pradhan and grandson-Jagannath Pradhan filed an application for substitution in Title Suit No.37 of 1994. Similarly, his second wife''s daughter-Renu Pradhan and son-Bhanu Pradhan filed an application for substitution. All the applications are pending for disposal.
On 09.01.1996, Jema Dei, the first wife of late Harihar Pradhan expired. Late Harihar Pradhan had executed a lease deed on 09.08.1988 in favour of one Dinanath Khana for a period of 99 years to construct house over Ac.0.072 decimals of land reserving the ground floor for himself. It was stipulated on the said lease deed that after demise of Harihar Pradhan his son Bhanu Pradhan shall be the absolute owner of the ground floor. Dinanath Khanna constructed 18 numbers of shop rooms on the ground floor and handed over possession to late Harihar Pradhan. Harihar Pradhan executed a lease deed in favour of his son-in-law, Surendra Nath Pradhan on 10.10.1991 in respect of 18 shop rooms for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- per month for a period of five years. After death of Harihar Pradhan, Surendra Nath Pradhan did not pay rent to Bhanu Pradhan, who became owner according to the lease deed dated 09.08.1988, for which Bhanu Pradhan filed a suit bearing Title Suit No.43 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela against Surendra Nath Pradhan for a declaration that he is the owner of 18 shop rooms on the strength of the Will dated 09.08.1988 executed by late Harihar Pradhan and for realization of arrear rent.
Renu Pradhan, Bhanu Pradhan and Sarita Pradhan have also filed a suit bearing Title Suit No.44 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela against Jagannath Pradhan, Indira Pradhan and Surendra Nath Pradhan for declaration of their right, title and interest over Plot No.2118/1 measuring Ac. 0.018 decimals in Khata No.483, Rourkela Town Unit-35 with further declaration that the registered sale deed dated 28.12.1995 executed by Jema Pradhan in favour of Surendra Nath Pradhan in respect of the suit land for Rs.1,80,000/- is null and void. Renu Pradhan has also filed another suit bearing Title Suit No.77 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela against Surendra Nath Pradhan and others for a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and for a further declaration that the registered sale deed dated 16.09.1995 executed by Malati Pradhan and Bhanu Pradhan is null and void and for realization of arrear rent from Dutilata Pradhan.
When all these four title suits namely, T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996 are pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Rourkela to resolve the inter se dispute between the parties, Jagannath Pradhan, the grandson of late Harihar Pradhan filed T.S. No.46 of 1996 before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska against Smt. Janaki Pradhan, Renu Pradhan, Bhanu Pradhan and Sarita Pradhan for a declaration that he is the adopted son of late Harihar Pradhan and is entitled to succeed all the suit properties and for further declaration that Bhanu Pradhan is not the legitimate son of late Harihar Pradhan and is not entitled to any of his properties and also for a declaration that Smt. Janaki Pradhan has no right over the schedule-C property and her name recorded in the ROR in respect of that land is fraudulent with other ancillary relief.
The parties to all the five suits are common, the questions to be decided are also substantially same, properties involved in these suits are situated in Rourkela and parties are also residing at Rourkela. For the convenience of the parties, all these five title suits should be heard together. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity in the trial, Smt. Janaki Pradhan, Renu Pradhan, Bhanu Pradhan and Sarita Pradhan, who are respondents no.1 to 4 in the present application and defendants no.3 to 6 in T.S. No.46 of 1996, which is pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Aska, filed an application under Section 24 read with 151 of C.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as M.J.C. No.4 of 1997, seeking for transfer of T.S. No.46 of 1996 from the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Aska to the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela for trial along with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, learned Single Judge by order dated 19.04.2002 allowed M.J.C. No.4 of 1997 directing transfer of T.S. No.46 of 1996 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Aska to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela for trial along with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No.4 of 1997, the appellant, who is the plaintiff-respondent no.1 in the Court below, has filed this appeal.
5. Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before this Court that learned Single Judge has committed gross error by transferring Title Suit No.46 of 1996 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska to the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rourkela for trial with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996. It is urged that the appellant being a native of Aska it is for his convenience he has filed Title Suit No.46 of 1996. Therefore, the said suit should be heard at the place where it has been instituted.
6. Mr. A.K. Patra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents strenuously disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the property in question, which is the subject matter of the dispute in T.S. No.46 of 1996 pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska, and parties to the proceedings are also parties to T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996, which are pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela and more particularly, the appellant is residing at Rourkela and just to cause harassment to the respondents, he has filed T.S. No.46 of 1996 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska. For the convenience of the parties, if all the five title suits are heard together at Rourkela, it will not cause any prejudice to anybody. Therefore, learned Single Judge is justified in passing the order dated 19.04.2002 directing to transfer T.S. No.46 of 1996, which is pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska, to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela for trial along with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996 in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. More so, if all the five title suits are heard together, there will be no multiplicity of litigations rather it will be in the greater interest of the parties to the suits itself.
7. Sections-22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for the transfer of suits. Section 22 gives such power to a defendant when the suit lies within the competence of courts more than one and the defendant desires to have the suit tried at one particular place. Section 23 specifies the courts where such application has to be filed by the defendant. Section 24 lays down the general power of transfer and withdrawal by the High Court or the District Court. Section 25 relates to the power of Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc.
For the purpose of adjudication of this case, the provisions contained under Section-24 (1) (a) being relevant are quoted below:
"24. General Power of transfer and withdrawal-(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-
(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same;"
8. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, the basic fundamental principle of transfer of suit from one Court to another is that justice must not only be done, but also appear to be done. While considering an application under Section 24 of C.P.C., the Court is to consider the likely effect to be produced in the mind of the party and not of the Judge. But, where both suits involve same parties and questions to be decided are substantially the same, it is in the interest of justice that both suits should be tried out at the same place, and by the same Judge. For avoidance of conflicting decision is a very good ground for transfer. Court is to take into consideration the bundle of facts and circumstances and keep in view the quick disposal of a proceeding and the privilege granted to the plaintiff to exercise his choice of forum without evil intention of putting the opposite party to inconvenience in choosing a forum. This exercise of discretion being dependent on facts and circumstances of each case, precedents would not be of much assistance.
9. This Court in Hari Charan Mitra v. Santosh Kumar Mitra, 40 (1974) CLT 1096 has held that convenience of both the parties are to be seen and not of one party in a petition for transfer.
10. In Menaka Sanjoy Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1974) 4 SCC 167, the apex Court held as follows:
"Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the Court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view or public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case".
11. While considering the application under Section 24 of C.P.C. with regard to power of the Supreme Court to transfer a suit in Subramaniam Swamy, Dr. v. Ramakrishna Hedge, AIR 1990 SC 113 it is held as follows:
"The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances, of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one Court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular Court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. The Parliament has, therefore, invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude; for the ends of justice-have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the apex Court as it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner''s plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone".
12. The question as to when a case may be transferred from one Court to another Court has been answered in Kulwinder v. Kandi Friends Education (2008) 3 SCC 659 in the following words:
"Reading sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witness; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit: issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order".
13. By applying the above mentioned principles laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge with regard to transfer of T.S. No.46 of 1996 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela to be tried along with T.S. 37 of 1994, T.S. 43 of 1996, T.S. 44 of 1996 and T.S. 77 of 1996 cannot be faulted with. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No.4 of 1997. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Since these are all year old cases, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rourkela is directed to make all endeavors to dispose of the same on priority basis by complying the provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to cost.
